DRAFT VERSION ©2004 David H. Calhoun All rights reserved. “Follow the Argument” and Two Other Socratic Principles for the Christian Academic David Calhoun, Philosophy, Gonzaga University Gonzaga Socratic Club, September 10, 2004 “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” So asked the early church father Tertullian, who notoriously answered, Nothing good.1 What has philosophical reason to do with Christian faith? What has Socrates to do with Christ? Tertullian’s answer to the question has not been the majority position throughout Christian history, but it has a particular resonance for many people today. Thanks in large part to the perception of conflicts between science—especially evolutionary biology—and religion, many critics of Christianity,2 and indeed many Christians, have posited a radical distinction between reason, argument, and evidence on the one hand and Christian faith and practice on the other. Few Christians today are willing to embrace the austere anti-logic of Tertullian’s “I believe because it is absurd,”3 preferring instead to think of faith in existential-fideistic terms. I mean by “existential-fideistic” something like the standard contemporary account that faith is a matter of “just believing,” of passionately giving assent to beliefs that in principle cannot be justified rationally. Christian beliefs might not be absurd or crazy—after all, the story goes, each person is entitled to believe whatever he or she wants—but it would be mistaken to look for reasons to ground these beliefs. For anyone holding this view, Socrates makes a rather odd patron saint. Still worse, critics in the spirit of Tertullian might argue that Socrates’ philosophical mission was essentially anti-religious, insofar as he attacked the traditional religious mythology of his time and set up human rationality as a competing source of truth. So why would the explicitly Christian Oxford Socratic Club of C. S. Lewis’ day take Socrates as a model and namesake, and adopt a Socratic principle as its guiding light? To bring the question more close to home, one might ask further: Why would the Gonzaga Socratic Club replicate this folly? The simple answer is that I think that Tertullian is wrong on this point and Lewis and the Oxford Socratic Club are right. Even if Socrates was not, a la Karl Rahner, an “anonymous Christian,”4 he sought to guide his life by principles of rational intelligibility that are entirely in concert with a broadly Christian outlook. I intend to demonstrate this claim by explaining Socrates’ basic methodology regarding rational argumentation, that articulated by the Socratic injunction to “follow the argument wherever it leads,” and linking it to a Christian account of faith and reason. Further, I wish to extend the connection between Socratic inquiry and the Christian quest for truth by recommending two additional Socratic principles closely related to the first. “Follow the Argument Wherever It Leads” Plato’s Socratic dialogues abound with instances of Socrates exhorting his interlocutors to pursue rational inquiry and reflection. As his conversations with people like Euthyphro, Euthydemus, Callicles, and Meno demonstrate, alternatives to rational reflection include shallow self- ignorance, pseudo-logical pyrotechnics, rhetorical bombast, and failed self-governance. To grant authority to reasoned discourse is nonetheless unattractive to many, because it is to cede mastery of oneself to an external source of governance. If I am sufficiently humble to recognize that I am not wise, and if further I should listen neither to the many, because they do not know (Crito 47a- 1 Calhoun, “Follow the Argument” and Two Other Socratic Principles” 2 d), nor to the supposedly wise, because they know less than they think and take what knowledge they have as equivalent to all wisdom (21a-22e), to whom should I listen? Whom should I obey? Socrates’ view is that I should ideally find and listen to the one who knows (Crito 47c-d), if there is such a person. On the basis of his famous examinations of putatively wise people, after the declaration of the Delphic Oracle that “no one is wiser than Socrates,” Socrates concluded that their apparent wisdom paled in contrast to the true wisdom that belongs only to the god (Apology 21b-23b).5 As Socrates sees it, the only remaining alternative for those who wish to pursue wisdom and knowledge is reasoned discourse, argument, critical reflection (all of the activities that, taken together, are called in ancient Greek ‘logos’). Reasoned discourse alone can reliably expose unreflective ignorance, reveal conflicting beliefs, and enable us to articulate reasons to justify our choices and actions. Socrates affirms his commitment to reasoned discourse on numerous occasions. For example, Plato’s Crito finds Socrates in prison after his conviction by his fellow Athenians on charges of disbelieving in the civic gods of Athens and corrupting the youth. Socrates’ friend Crito urges that Socrates embrace an escape plan that Crito and other friends have worked out. Socrates’ answer is a critical statement of his view of the value of reason: not only now but at all times I am the kind of man who listens only to the argument that on reflection seems best to me (Crito 46b)6 Socrates in this passage affirms deference to the authority of rational inquiry. There are several important features of this logos to which Socrates declares his deference. First, inquiry is reflective. It is not enough to consider an argument superficially and adopt whatever conclusion seems at first glance strongest. Second, inquiry has a personal element: the true inquirer must value rational reflection and must determine for himself what conclusion and supporting reasons are best supported by the argument. Third, rational reflection is not an episodic activity, it is a way of life or quality of one’s character. It is not enough to resort to reflection to convince others of the truth of your beliefs, or to employ reflection when it seems to have a reasonable likelihood of leading you toward conclusions you wish to affirm anyway. Even more important, Socrates’ view requires that one not abandon reflection when it challenges one’s beliefs, or when one seems to have argued to mistaken conclusions.7 Hence the oft-cited Socratic principle of inquiry, that we must follow the argument wherever it leads. Socrates states this principle in the Republic with a metaphorical illustration: “we must follow the argument wherever, like a wind, it may lead us” (Republic 394d).8 If we value reasoning and regard it as a legitimate source for truth, we should—and must—follow the path of our reflections no matter where they lead. Even if argument leads us to truths that are unexpected, unpleasant, or shocking, casting our lot with justified beliefs rather than ungrounded opinion means that we must trust the argument to lead us toward what is true. In another example, at the close of a series of difficult arguments on the immortality of the soul in the Phaedo, Socrates comments to his friends: “if you analyze [our first hypotheses] adequately, you will, I think, follow the argument as far as a man can and if the conclusion is clear, you will look no further.” (Phaedo 107b)9 Calhoun, “Follow the Argument” and Two Other Socratic Principles” 3 Socrates’ key idea is that while human powers of reasoning are limited, they give us sufficient resources to resolve questions about matters of importance to us. Even in cases in which a decisive determination of the truth is impossible, reasoned discourse provides us with the tools to find a justifiable conclusion, one on which we can stake our lives. So the principle to defer to rational argument as the arbiter of truth is clearly a Socratic principle. Is the goal of following the argument wherever it leads in any sense Christian? Many Christians and at least some critics of Christianity would demur. A standard objection is that heroes of faith obediently follow God despite what rational reflection might tell them to do. In what many would regard as the paradigmatic case, Abraham is regarded as the father of faith because he was willing obediently to go wherever God called him, without prior conditions or rational explanations, and was further willing to sacrifice his son at God’s command despite good reasons not to do so (see Genesis 12:1-4; 22:1-19).10 This interpretation is often defended by appeal to the “roll call of faith” in the Letter to the Hebrews, which contrasts what we can see with hope and the eyes of faith to what is humanly visible (see Hebrews 11:1-3). So, it would seem, rational inquiry is a potential barrier to spiritual vision, a possible temptation that we limit our vision to what is apparent now to merely human reason rather than the unseen reality that can be apprehended only via God’s grace. Despite the plausibility of this account, I have a number of reasons for thinking that the Socratic principle properly links reason and faith and hence is binding on a Christian. In the first place, Christianity, along with the other theistic religions, begins with the assumptions that the universe is ordered and that a key capacity of human beings is the ability to know the truth. The idea in the Hebrew creation account that God speaks the universe into existence (Genesis 1:1-3) is the basis for the notion that the universe is intelligible (e.g., Proverbs 3:19-20) and in Christian thought is interpreted in terms of the intelligible Word who is the agent of divine creation and the principle of order that maintains it in existence (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16-17).11 The implication of this is that the world reveals God’s nature, and consequently that human beings have the opportunity and obligation to inquire into and understand what can be so known (Romans 1:17-18).